SambaNova
6 indexed models
- Headquarters
United States- Server regions
- N/a
- Model types
- 6 text
Same-model provider benchmark
SambaNova vs Weights & Biases: LLM provider comparison
Compare SambaNova and Weights & Biases on 4 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.
Weights & Biases
19 indexed models
- Headquarters
- United States
- Server regions
- United States
- Model types
- 19 text
At a glance
Metric winners
There is no overall score. Each winner answers one specific question using only directly comparable data.
Fastest on shared models
1.69× typical advantage
4 exact models with complete recent speed data
Lowest token cost
$0.4742 / 1M
4 exact models using a 1K-input/500-output mix
Most models available
19 models
Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities
Shared-model benchmark summary
| Metric | SambaNova | Weights & Biases |
|---|---|---|
| Typical 500-token response | 8.03 s | 13.24 s |
| Typical response start | 1.89 s | 0.46 s |
| Typical output speed | 97.0 tok/s | 42.0 tok/s |
| Blended token price | $0.645 / 1M | $0.4742 / 1M |
| Typical route uptime | 97.47% | 99.89% |
Visual comparison
Price and performance charts
Estimated seconds using recent median response-start and output-speed data. Lower is better.
SambaNova has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 4 measured models.
USD per 1 million tokens using a 1,000-input/500-output mix. Lower is better.
Weights & Biases has the lower typical price ratio across 4 priced shared models.
| Model | SambaNova | Weights & Biases |
|---|---|---|
 Gemma 4 31BWinner · Weights & Biases google/gemma-4-31b-it | SambaNova
| Weights & Biases
|
 DeepSeek V3.1Winner · Weights & Biases deepseek/deepseek-chat-v3.1 | SambaNova
| Weights & Biases
|
 gpt-oss-120bWinner · Weights & Biases openai/gpt-oss-120b | SambaNova
| Weights & Biases
|
 Llama 3.3 70B InstructWinner · SambaNova meta-llama/llama-3.3-70b-instruct | SambaNova
| Weights & Biases
|
A per-model winner combines blended price and estimated 500-token response time with equal proportional weight. Ties and rows missing either measurement receive no badge. Comparison data calculated . Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.
SambaNova vs Weights & Biases analysis
How SambaNova and Weights & Biases compare for AI inference
SambaNova and Weights & Biases share 4 indexed text models, including Gemma 4 31B, DeepSeek V3.1, gpt-oss-120b, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. SambaNova has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.
Same-model speed evidence
4 shared models currently have complete response-start and output-speed measurements on both providers. The speed comparison uses per-model ratios before taking the median, so naturally faster model catalogs do not improve the result.
Token pricing on one workload
4 shared models have complete input and output prices on both providers. Prices use the same 1,000-input/500-output-token mix and are normalized to one million tokens for readability.
Catalog and deployment differences
SambaNova has 6 indexed models and lists no published server regions; Weights & Biases has 19 models and lists 1 region. Verify data residency, privacy terms, limits, and production latency directly before choosing.
Related same-model benchmarks
Compare with other providers
Explore qualified alternatives with the most shared measured models. Recommendations include comparisons for both SambaNova and Weights & Biases.
SambaNova vs DeepInfra
6 shared model benchmarks
Weights & Biases vs SiliconFlow
14 shared model benchmarks
SambaNova vs NovitaAI
6 shared model benchmarks
Weights & Biases vs Parasail
12 shared model benchmarks
SambaNova vs Together
4 shared model benchmarks
Weights & Biases vs Venice
10 shared model benchmarks